The shooting death of Chad Read

2

]2epo]v[an

Banned
While on leave for pointing out someone's 12a gender

I've been involved in discussions about this case in Texas that had nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case in any way but became a popular topic because of it. Lots of slimebags try to say it's the same type of case when there could never be found a single comparison. But it is an interesting case.

The decedent's name is chad read and he was shot dead by a guy named Kyle caruth or sumsht.

I'll find some vids and news articles in a sec. Oh, and I also found a criminal history snippet no one else seems to have found thus far.
 
chad-walker-01-ht-iwb-210330_1617117523199_hpMain_1x1_992.jpg
 
Personally, I'm torn. On one hand it was not self defense and on the other hand people have a right to dignity on their own property. Maybe his life wasn't in danger when he shot but on the other hand no one should have to put up with some sht like this on their own property.
 
Just like yesterday the read family filed a lawsuit. So far the case was dismissed without charges. "Justifiable murder" is what people are saying was the definition used. I'm having a bit of trouble finding this exact definition and may be a confusion for Justifiable Homicide, not sure.

Note, guy is a convicted embezzler. Not a very honest guy.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
Because someday you might grow a soul.
Click to expand...

I see.

And do you care equally about every, single, human being (or even American) who died that same day?

And if so?

Where is your thread/post about it?

Assuming you don't?

Than by your criteria...you have no soul.
 
The shooter very obviously shot to kill, firing not once but twice. And there have been no charges for the "felony" warning shot. I promised a bit more on that. Likely Texas has it that way just so cops don't have to use warning shots. The police unions don't like them and they have a strict policy against them. The arguments are that using a warning shot leaves you open for attack. If the public is allowed to use warning shots then police unions believe the public would presure the cops to have an uncomfortable standard peer pressure standard to follow. With warning shots being ridiculously illegal for the public to use, they can avoid all that and charge anyone that uses one as a matter of course arrest reason. The lack of charge in this case points to selective law enforcement where it wouldn't be a standardised charge and really just for the police unions to have an excuse.
 
I do have to condemn the shooter's technique. On a hard surface such as tiled concrete you don't fire a warning shot at a 45 degree angle, you use a 90.
 
McRocket said:
I see.

And do you care equally about every, single, human being (or even American) who died that same day?

And if so?

Where is your thread/post about it?

Assuming you don't?

Than by your criteria...you have no soul.
Click to expand...

Do you usually need multiple posts to express how much you don't care?

Fail much?
 
]2epo]v[an said:
Do you usually need multiple posts to express how much you don't care?

Fail much?
Click to expand...

Nope.

And do you usually need two posts to show you complete cowardice at answering a simple question?

Here it is again, coward?

And do you care equally about every, single, human being (or even American) who died that same day?
 
McRocket said:
Nope.

And do you usually need two posts to show you complete cowardice at answering a simple question?

Here it is again, coward?

And do you care equally about every, single, human being (or even American) who died that same day?
Click to expand...

I have no responsibility to answer a particularly fallacious question. Could you join the topic or kindly gfys?
 
]2epo]v[an said:
I have no responsibility to answer a particularly fallacious question. Could you join the topic or kindly gfys?
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.
That is the same for EVERY question on here.
DUH.

You just do not have the guts.
Because you know if you do?
Your argument COMPLETELY falls apart.

So run away now and play your virtue signaling games with someone else.


BTW - try learning what words actually mean before you use them.
Like 'fallacy'.
And you will - probably - not look so uneducated/ignorant.

'fallacy
făl′ə-sē
noun
A false notion.
A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.'
https://www.wordnik.com/words/fallacy

There is nothing 'false', 'invalid' or 'incorrect' about my question.



Now since you refuse to answer my question - or even learn what words mean - we are done here.

Bye now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top